Allowed¶10

Dharmvir Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2020BAIL/43237/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail during trial; S.376 IPC complaint case; retaliatory prosecution / arm-twisting plea; cross-case charge sheet under SC/ST Act; Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 3 SCC 22; Article 21; personal bond without sureties in extraordinary circumstances; bail conditions under S.229-A and S.174-A IPC, S.82 and S.313 Cr.P.C.; one-year trial conclusion direction; Allahabad High Court; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 43237 of 2020; Dharmvir Singh v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Dharmvir Singh on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions; until normal functioning of courts is restored, release permitted on personal bond without sureties, with sureties to be furnished within a month thereafter. ¶10

Dharmvir Singh Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Dharmvir Singh, facing trial in Complaint Case No.985 of 2018 u/s 376 IPC (P.S. Nibohara, District Agra) and in custody since 25.9.2020, is entitled to release on bail during trial.

¶6

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity, Article 21 and the dictum in Dataram Singh, the Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to stated conditions; breach of conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶11

Key takeaways

As an additional measure in the extra-ordinary circumstances, the applicant is to be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored, with sureties to be furnished within a month after normal functioning resumes.ratio¶20
The trial court is directed to make all possible efforts/endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.ratio¶16
Observations made in granting bail shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rahul Chaturvedi, J.), CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 43237 of 2020, decided 15.12.2020 - Bail allowed under S. 376 IPC. Applicant Dharmvir Singh, in custody since 25.9.2020 in Complaint Case No. 985 of 2018 (Misc. Case No. 7120 of 2018), P.S. Nibohara, District Agra, contended that the alleged victim Mamta's s.156(3) Cr.P.C. application (incident dated 18.01.2018) was retaliatory, having followed the charge sheet dated 13.3.2018 against her husband Dashrath and others u/s 147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(d) & 3(1)(e) SC/ST Act. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, and keeping in view Article 21 and the dictum in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Court held a case for bail was made out: release on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with conditions covering attendance, no adjournment when witnesses are present, consequences under S.229-A and S.174-A IPC and S.82 Cr.P.C., personal presence at charge-framing and S.313 Cr.P.C. statement, and endeavour to conclude trial within one year. In the extra-ordinary circumstances, interim enlargement was permitted on personal bond without sureties till normal court functioning resumes, sureties within a month thereafter.

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43237 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmvir Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

The applicant is facing prosecution in Complaint Case No.985 of 2018 in Misc. Case No.7120 of 2018, u/s 376 I.P.C., P.S.Nibohara, District-Agra. He is languishing in jail since 25.9.2020 and is seeking bail during trial.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant in fact is at receiving side. Prior to this incident the applicant Dharmvir Singh has lodged an N.C.R. against Dashrath (husband of the alleged victim Mamta) and other persons, which was later on converted to F.I.R. and the police after investigation has submitted a charge sheet on 13.3.2018 u/s 147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1) (d) & 3(1)(e) of SC/ST Act against all named accused persons including Dashrath, husband of the alleged victim Mamta.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel that in retaliation to it, the wife of the accused Dashrath i.e. the alleged victim Mamta on 30.01.2018 has filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. referring the date of incident 18.01.2018. A police report annexed as Annexure-5 to the petition, clearly shows that the victim has never approached the police station to lodge the F.I.R. This 156(3) application was treated as complaint case against the applicant and five other persons u/s 323, 504, 506, 452, 376, 307 I.P.C. It has been further contended by learned counsel that the alleged victim Mamta is a married woman, aged about 2528 years and is a mother of three kids. She has levelled a wild allegation against the applicant and there was no occasion for her to admit her for any medical examination. Though, in her statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C., she has made a usual allegation of sexual assault upon her but fact remains that the present case is clearcut case of retaliation and arm twisting. The applicant has got no criminal antecedents.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant and A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above facts. However, learned counsel for the complainant Shri Ajay Dubey has submitted that a poor lady was brutally ravished by the named accused persons which is reflected in the statement u/s 202 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Dharmvir Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶20

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶21

2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶23

4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above

¶25

conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶26

Order Date :- 15.12.2020 M. Kumar

Dharmvir Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmvir Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Vovi Vs State of U.P.

Pushparaj @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Shantan Vs State of U.P.

Arif Vs State of U.P.